วีดีโอ

Look at Bennington man so inspirational

One thing that’s kinda interesting about how much those is criticized in culture, is that the right uses many of the same post modern analytical tools it just dosent label it as such. Wheather it’s class conciousness or deconstruction or intersectionality, the right uses all of these analytical tools

Be hospitable to event of the arrival of the other and be inventive when you can.

Is there a good way to quickly make sense of inherited concepts of groups or individuals?

My fav professor.

1:25:00

52:49 everything is textural, interwoven. No distinction between language and world. Differentiating web of traces allowing differential effects of presence.

49:19 important … b is b because of traces but they are “absent”. B is not really “present”. Nothing really is present or absent. This interplay is differance.

good talk with an interesting framework! thank you for uploading these

what in god's great gullet is this man blathering about

After finishing this video I tried to start it over to watch it again. But I couldn’t find the beginning, which means I never finished watching it either

Deconstruction seems somewhat Zen. Like Zen Koans. Like Bodhidharma and Huang Po

Being just enthusiastic amateur lover of Sophia I can't express well enough how precious this lecture was. Oh, and perhaps it is just me, but on many specific moments Professors appearance was eerily similar to that of Wittgenstein! Unrelated to topic, but still.

Modern Critical Theory seems to be essentially Marxist Garbage.

We could maybe summarise some of this explanation by saying: any given tagmeme is outlined by the negative space given by the limit of sum of the terms which it is not. Brown is the negative space left by the sum of all other colours, the more colours you involve the more accurate your approximation of brown is. As we collect more and more terms that carry distinction information about what an object is not, the object implied by the negative space reveals itself in higher resolution, but not explicitly.

The lecture is great because it confirms my hunch- by arguing correctly that there is no signified- in absurdly complex and pretentious ways- Derrida is saying no more than later Wittgenstein- who said it pretty clearly without the need for mystification.

Linguistic sign is arbitrary = cause and effect do not exist (or things happen miraculously, for no reason at all). Prove me wrong.

So good! Gratitude, I am a ski and snowboard instructor, and a kind of guide, mentor or "coach" Occasionally I witness a student catch the spark, and the feeling is so powerful for them and for me. This teaching is such a spark, for me in my understanding of Derrida. This, a dawn long in coming. (Still fumbling in the shadows around C.S. Pierce, but inspired anew to learn. Happiness to you, all. Always, Erik

I come back to this lecture every now and then. Am a biochemist without much background in this stuff, but I feel like I pick up something valuable from this video each time.

𝐩𝓻Ỗ𝓂Ø𝓈Ｍ 🤗

We not race's but 80% of indigenous in Australia have white blood. Any indigenous with white blood should be entitled to nothing just like so called white people .they get jack. White people grandfather spilt there guts for Australia hoping there grandchildren would live a better life .but this is totally untrue. They leave the white people with nothing on the streets no where to live no jobs .who the hell is in-charge of this country

Thanks for the video, it was really helpful!

Brilliant. 🌹

Actually the linguistics of Saussure was and Is science.

Amazing! Thank you so very much!

At last! I am beginning to grasp the concept, wrap my head around it, of the phrase "the signifying monkey". I'm almost afraid that if I turn away from this insight, because the fear stimulates the notion that this monkey will then bite me. There's more arbitrariness in this idea of signifying monkey, therefore entailing that this animal I ought not, should not, DARE NOT monkey around with him or her or even it. Shit! th-cam.com/video/Voxp3ckwJZ0/w-d-xo.html

Spot on. Sounds like a very familiar academic department. So sadly parallel for some female colleagues.

A lot of what was discussed here compares with string theory. Very interesting.

This is the jackpot of “air-quote porn”. Which is, of course, in itself, simply a sign of a sign of a sign ( ad infinitum…./?+)

If you buy these people's garbage, I'm sorry to break it to you, but you're in a cult.

Lecture begins at 4:35

Can you please insert English subtitle for non-native speakers like us from Asia?

Thanks

28:00 34:40 1:12:00

Excellent lecture...How to out it into action

Can you imagine to put all this energy into STEM? At least create something beautiful. The issue that Art now is literally crap. You killed the Classical and even the Modern school.

If we were not subjective we would not invent reading as extention of thinking.We must see the true nature of perception before reading s way to know what is written.

......and now to punctuation as dramatic function of expression ; hardly philological ,though a subtraction - at least- from that attempt at philosophical device which he has termed , "trace". Mere thought ,on my part. Ha !

read Professor Nick Estes. His vision is the future. New book coming Red Nations Rising with other Native young authors

Is this a deleuzoguatt🙏🏼arian schizoid style lecture or no

Don't you think Derrida through his theory of Deconstruction enabled the readers to become creative?

If language is symbolic, then where do you place symbolism between the signifier and the signified?

Language is arbitrary,isn't it?

Aha!!! Finally I understand Derrida. I mean, as an amateur philosopher, I had always thought I understood him well enough, but there was never this clarity in simplicity, which, frankly, even the most alien philosophy can be cast in, but takes a clear minded interpreter to paraphrase a work into the clarity of accessible terms and Prof. Bennington is just this. Thank you Prof. Bennington!

I attended Dr. Taylor's black aesthetics course and his course on American Pragmatism (emphasis on Dewey) while he was at Temple Undergrad. He's brilliant and one of THE best professors I ever had.

There comes a time, a point in history, that men talk for the sake of talking. To be heard, to spout things that the truly intelligent can keep to brevity. I don't know if this is philosophy, be deconstructing the alphabet in this manner sounds like jargon attached to philosophical excess.

Somehow, somewhere, philosophy took a wrong turn and we get nitwit talks like this

i taught political philosophy for over 2 decades. damn, this is the gold standard of lectures.

12min Too desperate to argue against Saussere with a whole set of absence of reasons replaced with conclusions about how Saussere is problematic because the presenter has been unable to come up with reasons to support his degree of inability to support Saussere´s views,

I see Derrida's style as reading much like Nietzsche's. He even wrote that book, Spurs: Nietzsche's Style, which I haven't looked at for years, but I have The Derrida Reader left, which as I read it, sounds to me like Nietzsche, the sound I mean. But, as far as the construction of his sentences goes, I truly believe that he works on many sentences at once, skipping ahead in the middle of one, filling in part of another, assembling them with a goal in mind to discover how far he can push the limits of the matter of the subject he is discussing while remaining grammatical and somewhat reasonable to comprehend.